Princes In The Tower

Every purchase you make through these Amazon links supports DVD Verdict's reviewing efforts. Thank you!

All Rise...

Judge Kristin Munson wouldn't give her kingdom for a horse, but she would trade her feifdom for a pony.

The Charge

Lost Prince of England or royal pretender?

The Case

In 1483, Edward V, Crown Prince of England, and Richard, Duke of York, ages
12 and 10, were sent to the Tower of London by their dear Uncle Richard. They
were never seen again. Richard became Richard III, the War of the Roses ensued,
many Shakespearean adaptations were made. Big hump, sneer, "My Kingdom for
a Horse," you know the rest.

What you may not know is that in the 1490s, a young upstart named Perkin
Warbeck entered England and led a revolt against King Henry VII, claiming that
he was the real King of England. He also claimed that he was none other
than Richard, Duke of York, and this time, it was personal.

Actually, that's a lie. But he should have, because, unlike any other
self-respecting action hero on a path of vengeance, he was thrashed in every
battle and quickly thrown in the Tower. This is terribly ironic because A) it's
where he allegedly escaped death in the first place, and B) the Tower was the
King's official residence at the time. Who was this man, prince or pretender?
And what really happened to the two princes who were in that tower?

For the first five minutes, Princes in the Tower plays like a
docudrama, right down to the detached narration, terrible wigs, and still frames
posing as period photographs. Luckily, once all the necessary background is out
of way, it's free to become a whodunit, positioning itself as the missing
interrogation of Perkin Warbeck, the man who would be king…prince.
Whomever.

As a historical mystery, there couldn't be better topic. It's a hotly
contested unsolved crime with a long list of suspects from Yorks to Tudors, with
Richard III as the frontrunner, and that's presuming there even was a murder.
Warbeck isn't more than a footnote in most popular treatments of the case, so
the movie's plot twists are genuinely twisty. For every theory the script
suggests, it throws in some decent evidence, so sudden revelations don't come
across as cheap dramatic tricks. On the other hand, there are so many potential
solutions, and the script works so carefully to make them all possible, that it
starts to feel like you're in a mismanaged game of Clue.

If the only two princes you're familiar with are from that Spin Doctors'
song, then chances are you're not going to notice or care if the scripts plays
fast and loose with the facts. As it was, I enlisted the help of a local
Richardologist to test Princes in the Tower's accuracy. And by 'local' I
mean 'my mom'. She's gone up against some of the foremost writers and historians
on this issue, mainly by arguing with books and the television and accusing said
experts of getting their degrees from Jack & Harry's. (Apparently, if you
grew up in '50s Massachusetts, this is deeply insulting.) Nevertheless, she
knows her stuff, and, except for some huffing over hair color and a few
narrative claims, I didn't have to put her and the disc in separate corners.

Now is the winter of my discontent, for there are a few details that
distract from an otherwise interesting movie. The somewhat choppy pacing makes
it feel like an extended reenactment for a documentary, and the sporadic
narration doesn't help. It's not until halfway through that the narrator
(Richard Griffiths, Uncle Dursley from the Harry Potter series) reveals himself
to be one of the characters looking back, and the idea is dropped again until
the finale. Then there's the "Spanish" Ambassador who has an accent
when speaking Spanish but is as English as spotted dick the rest of time.

The picture for Princes in the Tower is soft and slightly speckled,
like something off broadcast cable, and the sound is merely average. This isn't
really noticeable until you access the bonus feature and suddenly your screen
lights up and the back speakers start pumping out noise. This bonus is a snippet
from The Tower, a Channel 4 longform documentary on the Tower of London.
It's interesting but incomplete. Experts talk of DNA testing of bones believed
to be those of the princes and even probe a tomb trying to locate a blood
relative to test against, but since Queen Elizabeth II has consistently turned
down requests to disturb the bones, that's where the story ends.

For a simple TV movie, Princes in the Tower is surprisingly well
acted, scripted, and costumed, with the exceptions of those wigs. It's a little
unforgiving if you have no prior knowledge of the subject, but if you know
enough to have an opinion on Richard III's guilt, it's a decent evening's
entertainment. Brush up your Shakespeare and give it a try.